Title VII Suit Against Church Body Can Move Ahead

In Edley-Worford v. Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church, (ED VA, Dec. 30, 2019), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII claim by the former Director of Inclusivity and Lay Leadership Excellence in a church organization.  Plaintiff, an African American woman, claimed she was given an unfair workload in relation to those of her Caucasian co-workers and was fired when she complained to the Board of Laity and Personnel Committee. Defendants unsuccessfully raised defenses of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In 2 Ministerial Exception Cases

The U.S, Supreme Court today granted review in two cases involving the scope of the "ministerial exception" doctrine. The Court consolidated the two cases for review.  One of the cases is St. James School v. Biel, (Docket No. 19-348, certiorari granted 12/18/2019). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals  in a 2-1 decision held that a 5th grade teacher at a Catholic elementary school is not a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine. At issue was a suit under the Americans for Disability Act brought by a teacher whose contract was not renewed.  (See prior posting.) The 9th Circuit over 9 dissents denied en banc review. (See prior posting.) The second case in which the Supreme Court granted review is Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, (Docket No. 19-267, certiorari granted 12/18/2019). In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a teacher in a Catholic school is not a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine. (Full text of 9th Circuit decision).

Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Elementary Teacher's Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

In Hutson v. Concord Christian School, LLC, (ED TN, Nov. 4, 2019), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed an employment discrimination suit brought by an elementary teacher at a Baptist school.  The teacher's contract was not renewed after she became pregnant out of wedlock. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of plaintiff's claims.

7th Circuit Clarifies Application of Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, (7th Cir., Aug.8, 2019), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Easterbrook held employment discrimination allegations brought by an organist in a Catholic church must be dismissed under the "ministerial exception" doctrine.  In deciding the case, the court clarified the 7th Circuit's approach to determining when the ministerial exception doctrine will apply:

If the Roman Catholic Church believes that organ music is vital to its religious services, and that to advance its faith it needs the ability to select organists, who are we judges to disagree? Only by subjecting religious doctrine to discovery and, if necessary, jury trial, could the judiciary reject a church’s characterization of its own theology and internal organization. Yet it is precisely to avoid such judicial entanglement in, and second-guessing of, religious matters that the Justices established the rule of Hosanna-Tabor....

It is easy to see a potential problem with a completely hands-off approach. Suppose a church insists that everyone on its payroll, down to custodians and school-bus drivers, is a minister. That is not fanciful—it is what one religious group did assert in Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985)....

The answer lies in separating pretextual justifications from honest ones....  Once the defendant raises a justification for an adverse employment action, the plaintiff can attempt to show that it is pretextual. The defense bears the burden of articulating the justification, but the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the justification is a pretext.

Near the end of his opinion, Judge Easterbrook adds an interesting tangential discussion of the history of music in the Catholic Church:

Even Hieronymus von Colloredo, the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg who sacked Wolfgang Mozart, understood that music has a vital role in the Roman Catholic faith. After Colloredo decided that the mass, including its music, must not  exceed 45 minutes, Mozart asked for leave to travel. Colloredo refused and fired him.... Colloredo thought that lesser (and less demanding) musicians would suffice; he did not remove music from the mass. In 1782 he abolished instrumental music in church and severely limited accompanied music, but the organ remained. The rest of the world gained from Colloredo’s decisions, as Mozart moved to Vienna and went on to produce secular masterpieces such as the Marriage of Figaro and the Jupiter Symphony, as well as two glorious masses in which the music alone exceeds 45 minutes (the Mass in C minor, K. 427/417a, and the Requiem, K. 626).

Teacher Sues Archdiocese For Directing Catholic High School To Fire Him Over Same-Sex Marriage

Catholic Herald reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Indianapolis by Joshua Payne-Elliott, a former teacher at Cathedral High School. The suit charges interference with the teacher's professional relationship with the school. The Archdiocese directed the high school to terminate Payne-Elliott's contract after he entered a same-sex marriage. The school made it clear it was following the directive in order to avoid the Archdiocese withdrawing recognition of the school as Catholic. One day before filing his lawsuit against the Archdiocese, the teacher reached what was apparently a friendly settlement with Cathedral High School. The school is helping him find a new teaching position. In response to the lawsuit, the Archdiocese issued this statement:

In the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ Catholic schools, all teachers, school leaders and guidance counselors are ministers and witnesses of the faith, who are expected to uphold the teachings of the Church in their daily lives, both in and out of school. Religious liberty, which is a hallmark of the U.S. Constitution and has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court, acknowledges that religious organizations may define what conduct is not acceptable and contrary to the teachings of its religion, for its school leaders, guidance counselors, teachers and other ministers of the faith.

9th Circuit, Over Dissents, Denies En Banc Rehearing In Ministerial Exception Case

In Biel v. St. James School, (9th Cir., June 25, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a rehearing en banc in an ADA case brought by a 5th grade teacher at a Catholic elementary school. The panel, in a 2-1 decision, held that the teacher is not a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine. (See prior posting.)  Nine judges dissented from the denial of an en banc  rehearing in a 24-page opinion written by Judge Nelson, saying in part:

By declining to rehear this case en banc, our court embraces the narrowest construction of the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” and splits from the consensus of our sister circuits that the employee’s ministerial function should be the key focus.

[Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.] 

False Light Invasion of Privacy Suit By Pastor Is Dismissed

In Byrd v. DeVeaux, (D MD, March 4, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention and ministerial exception grounds a false light invasion of privacy suit brought by Alicia Byrd, a pastor at an African Methodist Episcopal Church. Byrd sought over $14 million in damages for a report issued by the parent AME Church's Ministerial Efficiency Committee saying that she collateralized church property to build a non-profit facility without proper approval and for a letter alleging that she co-mingled church funds.  The court said in part:

Some of the independent  statements Plaintiff relies on are obviously fused with concepts of church law, polity, or doctrine, while others appear secular.... As a whole, the reports and letter constitute a matter of internal church discipline, and the statements contained within the documents are incapable of extrapolation from the overall ecclesiastical nature of the documents. Thus, Plaintiff's false light claim is barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine....

Here, Plaintiff's claim is rooted in the MEC's disciplinary review of Plaintiff and decision that Plaintiff should be placed on administrative leave.... [T]he ministerial exception would apply to Plaintiff's false light claim and would provide an additional reason to grant summary judgment to Defendants.

Ministerial Exception Defense Rejected In Suit To Apply Labor Code To Preschool Teachers

In Su v. Stephen S. Wise Temple, (CA App., March 8, 2019), a California state appellate court held that teachers in a Reform Jewish Temple's preschool are not covered by the ministerial exception rule.  In the case, California's Labor Commissioner sued on behalf of 40 teachers alleging that the school violated the state's Labor Code by failing to provide rest breaks, uninterrupted meal breaks, and overtime pay.In rejecting the Temple's ministerial exception defense, the majority said in part:

Although the Temple’s preschool curriculum has both secular and religious content, its teachers are not required to have any formal Jewish education, to be knowledgeable about Jewish belief and practice, or to adhere to the Temple’s theology.  Further, the Temple does not refer to its teachers as “ministers” or the equivalent, nor do the teachers refer to themselves as such. Accordingly, we conclude the teachers are not “ministers” for purposes of the ministerial exception.

Presiding Judge Edmon filed a concurring opinion contending that the court need not reach the question of whether the teachers held "ministerial" positions, saying in part:

I would conclude that the Temple has not demonstrated that the ministerial exception has any application to the present dispute, which does not touch on the Temple’s freedom to choose its ministers or to practice its beliefs....

[T]he constitutional imperative against encroaching on a church’s selection of its ministers does not, as a logical matter, suggest that churches must be exempted from all laws that would regulate the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Given the number and variety of federal and state employment laws, it stands to reason that some laws will impose a greater burden on religious interests than will others. Accordingly, courts can, without doctrinal inconsistency, exempt churches from the application of some employment laws without exempting churches from all such laws.

9th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Doctrine Does Not Bar Parochial School Teacher's Suit

In Biel v. St. James School, (9th Cir., Dec, 17, 2018), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a 5th grade teacher at a Catholic elementary school is not a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine. At issue was a suit under the Americans for Disability Act brought by a teacher whose contract was not renewed.  The majority said in part:

A contrary rule, under which any school employee who teaches religion would fall within the ministerial exception, would not be faithful to Hosanna-Tabor or its underlying constitutional and policy considerations. Such a rule would render most of the analysis in Hosanna-Tabor irrelevant. It would base the exception on a single aspect of the employee’s role rather than on a holistic examination of her training, duties, title, and the extent to which she is tasked with transmitting religious ideas.

Education Week reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Ministerial Exception Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Grusgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., (Docket No. 18-125, certiorari denied 11/5/2018). (Order List.)  In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception applies to prevent a former Hebrew teacher in a Jewish day school from suing for her firing in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. (See prior posting.)

Dean's Contract Claim Not Barred By Ministerial Exception

In Sumner v. Simpson University, (CA App., Sept. 25, 2018), a California appellate court summarized its holding in a case brought by the former dean of Tozer Seminary who was terminated for insubordination:

[T]he trial court correctly concluded that Simpson University is a religious organization and that Sumner is a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception, but that her contract cause of action is not foreclosed by the ministerial exception. Defendants have failed to show that resolution of Sumner’s contract claim would excessively entangle the court in religious matters. However, her tort causes of action are part and parcel of the actions involved in her termination, and are therefore barred by the ministerial exception.

ESL Teacher At Christian College Loses Suit Because of Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Yin v. Columbia International University, (D SC, Sept. 30, 2018), a South Carolina federal district court held that the ministerial exception applies to a teacher of English as a second language at a university that trains students for the Christian ministry. Plaintiff's contract was terminated when the university encountered financial difficulties.  The court thus dismissed plaintiff's suit alleging discrimination and retaliation against her on the basis of race, sex, and national origin, as well as violation of the Equal Pay Act and defamation.

Ministerial Exception In Hostile Work Environment Cases

In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City, (ND IL, Sept. 30, 2018), an Illinois federal district court set out an extensive analysis of when the ministerial exception doctrine bars claims for a hostile work environment, as opposed to claims involving firing or refusal to hire, under Title VII and the ADA.  In the case, a parish music director claimed damages because of abusive and harassing behavior growing out of his engagement and marriage to a same-sex partner.  The court said in part:

[W]hen a minister brings a claim that does not challenge a tangible employment action, then whether the First Amendment bars the claim depends on a case-by-case analysis on the nature of the claim, the extent of the intrusion on religious doctrine, and the extent of the entanglement with church governance required by the particular litigation. If the nature of the claim would require that a court take stance on a disputed religious doctrine, then that weighs in favor of First Amendment protection for the church....

If, on the other hand, no religious justification is offered at all (for a nontangible employment action), then there would be little or no risk of violating the Free Exercise Clause....

... [L]itigation over Reverend Dada’s alleged harassment based on Demkovich’s sex, sexual orientation, and marital status would excessively entangle the government in religion. To start, the Archdiocese offers a religious justification for the alleged derogatory remarks and other harassment....

... [H]arassing statements and conduct are motivated by an official Church position (or at least the Archdiocese would defend the case on those grounds). Of course, regulating how the official opposition is expressed is not as directly intrusive as outright punishing the Church for holding that position (which a federal court cannot do). But it comes close, and must weigh in favor of barring the claim under the Religion Clauses. 

3rd Circuit Will Not Adjudicate Pastor's Breach of Contract Claim

In Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburgh, (3d Cir., Sept. 5, 2018), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals refused to adjudicate a terminated minister's breach of employment contract claim, saying in part:

The Church argues that Lee materially breached the Agreement by failing to provide adequate spiritual leadership, as reflected in decreased church contributions and attendance during Lee’s tenure....

While the amount of church contributions and members is a matter of arithmetic, assessing Lee’s role, if any, in causing decreased giving and reduced membership in the Church requires a determination of what constitutes adequate spiritual leadership and how that translates into donations and attendance—questions that would impermissibly entangle the court in religious governance and doctrine prohibited by the Establishment Clause....

Moreover, parsing the precise reasons for Lee’s termination is akin to determining whether a church’s proffered religious-based reason for discharging a church leader is mere pretext, an inquiry the Supreme Court has explicitly said is forbidden by the First Amendment’s ministerial exception. Hosanna-Tabor....

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports on the decision.

Connecticut RFRA Does Not Immunize Against Employment Discrimination Suits

In Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,  (CT Sup. Ct., Aug. 7, 2018 [official release date]), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not confer complete immunity to religious institutions for employment discrimination suits, and does not operate as a jurisdictional bar to such actions. Thus an interlocutory appeals of an administrative agency's refusal to dismiss a suit is not permitted.

"Ministerial Exception" Applies To Church Organist

In Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, (ND IL, July 23, 2018), An Illinois federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to an organist at a Catholic parish.  Plaintiff claims he was demoted from Director of Music to Organist because he is Polish and because of his age. The court previously held that the Director of Music position was within the ministerial exception doctrine.  It now rejected plaintiff's claim that his position no longer qualified as "ministerial" after his demotion. In the court's view:

the key dispute is the importance of music—and, more specifically, the importance of instrumentalists—to Catholic Worship at Mass.

The court went on to say:

the Catholic Bishop argues that the evidence indisputably proves that playing the organ in support of the Church’s religious services still qualifies as performing a ministerial function....

Based on the record evidence, the Court must agree. To start, there is only so much that a federal court may do in questioning a church’s view of its own religious doctrine. It is true that, although “a secular court may not take sides on issues of religious doctrine, it must be allowed to decide whether a party is correct in arguing that there is an authoritative church ruling on an issue, a ruling that removes the issue from the jurisdiction of that court.”... But “once the court has satisfied itself that the authorized religious body has resolved the issue, the court may not question the resolution.”

Cook County Record reports on the decision.

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Minister's Breach of Contract Case

Last week, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburgh. (Audio of full oral arguments).  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception and excessive entanglement grounds a breach of contract suit by the church's pastor who was fired without being compensated under the contract clause relating to termination without cause.  (See prior posting.) Trib Total Media reports on the oral arguments.

Factual Questions Remain On Ecclesiastical Abstention and Ministerial Exception

In Kelley v. Decatur Baptist Church, (ND AL, May 1, 2018), an Alabama federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss a Title VII pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by a maintenance and child care employee of a church.  The court held that factual questions exist as to whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies. Plaintiff claims she was fired because she was pregnant.  Defendant contends she was fired because she engaged in sexual conduct outside of marriage in violation of Biblical standards.  The court also held that factual questions exist as to whether the ministerial exception doctrine applies.  Plaintiff challenged defendant's characterization of her as a minister charged with equipping, training, and evangelizing the next  generation according to biblical standards and morals.

District Court Again Dismisses Suit Over Board Positions On Sikh Dharma Entities

In Puri v. Khalsa, (D OR, April 26, 2018), an Oregon federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit originally filed in 2010 growing out of disputes following the death of Yogi Bhajan, an important Sikh spiritual leader in the United States.  The widow and three children of Yogi Bhajan claim that they are entitled to board positions in two nonprofit Sikh Dharma entities. In a 2017 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, reviewing  the trial court's dismissal solely on the basis of the pleadings, held that the suit should not have been dismissed on ministerial exception or ecclesiastical abstention grounds. (See prior posting.)  In yesterday's decision, however, the district court, ruling on a summary judgment motion, held that information outside the pleadings now before the court leads to the conclusion that defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.

Hospital Can Assert Ministerial Exception Defense To Suit By Chaplain

In Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital, (2d Cir., March 7, 2018), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a hospital "only historically connected to the United Methodist Church but still providing religious services through its pastoral care department" may invoke the ministerial exception doctrine.  The court summarized its majority opinion:

Mr. Penn—a former duty chaplain at New York Methodist Hospital—brought a lawsuit alleging that New York Methodist Hospital and Peter Poulos discriminated against him on the basis of his race and religion, and retaliated against him after he filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York City Commission on Human Rights. New York Methodist Hospital, because of its history and continuing purpose, through its Department of Pastoral Care, is a “religious group.” Mr. Penn’s role within the Department of Pastoral Care was to provide religious care to the hospital’s patients and religious care only. Therefore, the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses warrant the application of the ministerial exception doctrine and the dismissal of this lawsuit.

Judge Droney dissented, saying in part:

The presence of a non‐sectarian chaplaincy department cannot transform an otherwise secular hospital into a religious institution for purposes of the ministerial exception.  If it could, most hospitals would be exempt from anti‐discrimination laws, as most—even clearly secular hospitals—have chaplaincy departments.... Moreover, the interfaith nature of the Department means that it is not run according to the tenets of any particular religion, thereby reducing the likelihood that evaluating the reasons for the termination of an employee such as Penn would “plunge [a court] into a maelstrom of Church policy, administration, and governance.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.